Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="KnightBridgeAZ, post: 4268776, member: 591"] Ok, got you. True on what perfect seeding means. Agree that - on the whole - the more it strays the more likely seeding had mistakes, however: "The more it strays from chalk, the worse the seeding was" might be arguably true, but it would require some qualification. The wins of 2 lower seeded teams, such as Creighton or South Dakota might suggest under-seeding, but there was really nothing in their records that could have produced them seeded in the top 16, where this would be chalk. Similarly, it is often said, the 4/5, 8/9 matchups are toss-ups. In many cases, there really isn't a lot of difference between teams on those lines and I would be hard put to call it "bad seeding" across the board if upsets occur along those lines. But as you say, if there are upsets everywhere, one could indeed argue that there were significant seeding errors. [/QUOTE]